TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The goods in question were diverse items of 'wooden furniture' in bills of entry impugned in both notices and 'sofa sets' in one notice and the rejection of declared value was purportedly prompted by lack of comparability with contemporaneous imports, which, apparently, had been communicated to the importer vide letter dated 29th October 2012. Oddly, insofar as the appeal pertaining to procurement China is concerned, we note that three of the consignments were imported after the purported letter and it surprises that the said communication was claimed as justification for rejection of value thereof and sufficing as compliance with 'pre-rejection' requisite set out in rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The letter itself suggests that lack of details about the composition and components individual pieces of furniture in the consignment does not permit comparison with 'identical goods' and, hence, proposed comparison with 'similar goods' which, in the assessment order was held to be unfavorable to the importer. Be that as it may, and the absence of any validation of the information deployed for comparison as prelude to assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eous invoices were not amenable to use for the purpose of rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It is further contended that the derivation of a formula for application to total weight of each of the impugned consignments, though plausibly passable as another method of valuation and remaining unchallenged for fitment in absence of such proposition from the 'proper officer', was not in consonance with rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. According to Learned Counsel, similar goods would have to be similar and transaction value of these goods, as they are and adjusted only in the manner provided for, would need to be adopted for validating reassessment. He pointed out that the lower authorities had affirmed a value which is not the transaction value and consequently not acceptable for having been defaced to such extent as to be recognizably not. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the adjustment, permitted in terms of rule 4(1)(b) and rule 4(1)(c) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, cannot be stretched beyond recognition to contrive a value statistic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 followed by recourse to value of 'similar goods' as appreciated by the lower authorities. At this stage, and notwithstanding the submission on that count by Learned Counsel, we do not propose to examine the scope of the provisioning for rejection of acceptability of declared value for assessment; we shall revert should that need addressing. Suffice it to say, for the nonce and upon assumption, that the, doubtlessly, far-reaching scope of this enabling empowerment is constrained only by the procedure set out therein and restricted transactions that may not be deployed as benchmarks. Compliance with the template in rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 is to be ascertained on adherence to 'similar' on comparability of impugned goods and benchmarked goods and adherence of 'adjustments' permitted by rule 4(1)(b) and rule 4(1)(c) therein made applicable to rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 8. There is no doubt that, as the appellant claims, recourse to rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DGOV. I also find in the case of M/s Lifestyle International Ltd 2011 (271) ELT 190 (Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court refused to set aside the Standing Order No. 36/2008 date 1 13.08.2008 that prescribed the valuation of furniture on the basis of weight.' in both the impugned orders is an apology of conformity for having reduced the 'transaction value' of the benchmarked imports to a statistic and for that statistic to be applied to declared value of imported goods again reduced to statistic to finalize 'price factor' for loading. Indeed, 'loading' is not recognized or envisaged as an option among the several methods enumerated in Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. To the extent that reassessment has ordered loading instead of determining acceptable surrogate value, the revision of declared value is not correct. 10. The justification offered by the adjudicating authority for fastening 'price factor' instead of surrogate value, even adjusted, is the provisioning against heading 9403 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for 'kg' in the column for 'unit' in contradistinction with other headings. The purpose of such 'units' i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 13th August, 2008 in the case of valuation of imported unbranded furniture has been issued merely by way of guidelines for assessing officers to arrive at a suitable conclusion in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules in the event of any reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value of the imported furniture. According to him, actual valuation of the imported goods is to be determined as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Custom Valuation Rules. xxxxxx 10. Having heard rival contentions, having examined the length and breadth of the guidelines and the scope of Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, the standing order No. 36/2008 dated 13th August, 2008 is merely departmental guidelines without any statutory force issued with a view to assist the assessing officer, but that does not mean that the assessing officer should abdicate his powers and assess the matter de hors the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. The said guidelines can only be used wherever the assessing officer finds that Customs Valuation Rules are silent or they need to be supplemented. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight at the time of physical verification of the import by the Customs authorities, in our view, could not in any manner change the transaction value disclosed in the proforma invoices, which has not been disputed by the Revenue. In these circumstances, loading the invoice price prorata basis to the extent of excess weight of the furniture noticed during the physical examination, in our view, unsustainable in law for the reasons mentioned above. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Likewise, in re Abhiman Impex, it was held that '6. We find that undisputedly the appellant had imported wooden furniture of different varieties meant to be used in bedrooms and hall etc. While importing the said goods, the appellant had declared the classification of the product, under Chapter 9403 60 00 and 9403 20 90 of CTA, 1975 which are assessable to duty as unit not by weight. Therefore, noticing excess weight at the time of physical verification of the import by the Customs authorities, in our view, could not in any manner change the transaction value disclosed in the proforma invoices, which has not ....